IMPORTANT POINT
Medical practitioner cannot be held liable simply because things went wrong because of an error in judgment in choosing a reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. The medical practitioner can be held liable only if his conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.

Ashok Bhan, President—Petitioner herein, who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Buxar Bihar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’’ for short) has filed the present Revision Petition against Order dated 07.12.2005 in Appeal No. 662 of 2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short whereby the State Commission has allowed the Appeal and set aside the Order of the District Forum. The District Forum, in its Order, had held the respondent to be guilty of medical negligence and deficient in service and has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:-

Case of the complainant is that wife of his younger brother, viz. Kiran Srivastava, was 4 months pregnant. She was taken to the clinic of the respondent for treatment on 21.12.2001 and the respondent prescribed medicines to her since 22.12.2001. It was alleged that on 13.02.2002, the patient started bleeding and, on 14.02.2002, she was taken to the clinic of the respondent, who after examination, advised ultrasound which was done. Petitioner showed ultrasound report to the respondent, who, after examining the same, prescribed some medicines but without any relief and, thereafter, the patient was moved to Patna where she was examined by Dr.(Smt.) Nilam Jha, who admitted the patient in her clinic and, after examination, declared that the child in the womb has died 10 days ago and the life of the patient was in danger. Dr. Jha advised for immediate operation, which was done by her to save the life of the patient. The dead foetus was removed. It was alleged in the complaint that there was negligence and deficiency on the part of the respondent in giving treatment to the patient. That after examining ultrasound report, the Doctor prescribed medicines, although, from the ultrasound, it was clear that the child had already died in the womb. That either she could not understand the ultrasound report or in a negligent way, she did not care to give immediate treatment to the patient which was urgent in such cases and only prescribed medicines which were of no use and condition of patient further deteriorated. That when she was taken to Patna, the lady Doctor at Patna, after examining the ultrasound report, declared that the child had died. 10 days back and, to save the life of the patient, it was essential to terminate the pregnancy immediately. Under the above circumstances, being aggrieved, the complainant filed the Complaint before District Forum.

3. After service of notice, respondent appeared and filed its Written Objections stating that she had not charged any fees from the complainant as the patient was known to her and, because she had not charged any fees, the patient was not a ‘consumer’ under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). That she is a qualified lady Doctor having long experience and she had examined the patient and prescribed medicines like iron, calcium and protein, which is usually prescribed to a pregnant patient to supplement her diet. On 14.02.2002, the patient had complained about bleeding for the first time and, therefore, she advised her for ultrasound and also prescribed some medicines for safety of foetus and also of the patient. That in the ultrasound report, there was no clear sign about the miscarriage of the foetus in the womb and so she suggested the patient to wait for 2 days but thereafter the patient did not come to her. That the patient was taken to Patna where she was operated upon by Dr. Jha. That the patient did not follow her advice. That she had prescribed only those medicines which are advised to the pregnant ladies. According to the medical jurisprudence, if a child dies and remains in the womb even for a month, there is no adverse effect to the health of the mother. That the allegation of negligence